특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
All appeals are dismissed.
The judgment below
Of the reasons, the crime of the defendant A is added to the crime of the defendant A.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on the grounds of Defendant B’s appeal, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the lower court convicted Defendant B of the charges of fraud around November 5, 2008, attempted fraud, interference with business, and violation of the Act on the Protection and Investigation of Burial Cultural Properties.
In doing so, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of deception, renunciation of public recruitment, deception, deception, criminal intent, commencement of execution, or obstruction of business by fraudulent means, or by omitting judgment,
In addition, according to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, a final appeal shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.
Defendant
In this case where a more minor punishment is imposed against B, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.
2. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on the grounds of Defendant A’s appeal, the lower court’s determination that Defendant A was guilty of violating the Act on the Protection of Cultural Properties of J among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant A on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable.
In doing so, the court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.
In addition, according to the records, the defendant A appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the defendant A appealed from the Seoul Northern District Court 2012 High Order 961 among the charges of this case against the defendant A.